Sen, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner Fitrat Raza Khan challenges the validity of his detention by the order of the District Magistrate, Moradabad, under sub-sec. (2) of S. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act'), on his being satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
(2.) The order of detention is based on two grounds, the first of which relates to an incident of August 13, 1980, relating to the communal riots that occurred in Moradabad City, and the second of July 24, 1981, when the petitioner is alleged to have incited Muslims to communal violence. The grounds of detention are as follows: "(i) That on 13-8-1980 at about 1-30 p.m. you along with your other 700-800 Musalman companion rioters armed with bricks, lathis, iron rods, sabbal, bottles, etc., under the impulse of communal feelings at Bazar Ganj Neem Ki Piyao within the territorial limits of P.S. Kotwali Moradabad from the side of the Kacha Bagh attacked Hindus, resorted to brickbatting and have thrown bottles on them which caused hurt to Hindus. When Shri Jagdish Singh S.H.O. of P. S. Kotwali along with other force challenged you with a view to preventing you from acting in such manner you and your companions resorted to brickbatting on police and under great police pressure you dispersed. In this connection a Criminal Case No. 863/80 under Section 147/148/336/ 436/395, I.P.C. was registered on the F.I.R. lodged by Shri Jagdish Singh, S.H.O. of Police Station Kotwali and the same is pending in the Court. (ii) That on 24-7-81 at about 9 P.M. at Sarai Hussaini Begum in Police Station Kotwali City and District Moradabad at Mohalla Thabboo Ka Nala on the road leading to Deputy Ganj crossing you along with other eight Muslims assembled and you were inciting them with communal feelings against Hindus and were saying that during the last riots Hindus had committed great atrocities against Muslims and the forthcoming Id is reminding of the last Id. Now we would take revenge against Hindus. On our memory being afreshed with the approach of this coming Id our blood boils. Police too had committed atrocities on us during the last riots. Revenge has to be taken against the police also and has to be confronted boldly. I have made arrangements of better arms from outside. Money will be needed to purchase them. You people should assist me for this work. This amount is to be collected from the important Muslims so that it may not come to the knowledge of the police and some young Muslims also be prepared so that bold confrontation may be staged. Your companions supported all of your proposals and promised to collect the money sooner to purchase the arms. When S.I. Shri Vidya Ratan and other policemen of Police Station Kotwali tried to prevent you from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order and attempted to arrest, then you, with the intent to kill policemen fired on them with a pistol taken out from under the belt of your pants and they narrowly escaped. You were caught on the spot. On your personal search a 12 bore country made pistol along with an empty cartridge and 2 live 12 bore cartridges secured from your possession. In this connection a Criminal Case No. 631/80 under Sections 307/153, I. P. C. and u/Ss. 632/81 read with Section 25 Arms Act has been registered against you and the same is pending." The two grounds set out are nothing but narration of facts bringing out the antecedent history of the petitioner. It is obvious therefrom that the ground for the making of the order for his detention is one and the same, viz., to prevent him from inciting communal violence in Moradabad City.
(3.) In challenging the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly advanced two contentions. The first is that the grounds of detention besides being vague and lacking in particulars, did not furnish sufficient nexus for forming the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority; it is further said that ground No. (i) is stale and, therefore, could not be taken into account by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention, particularly when the petitioner is being prosecuted for the alleged offences committed by him in the communal riots. The second is that the undue delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation made by the petitioner renders his continued detention bad. Neither of the contentions can be accepted.;